Gilad Atzmon is a jazz & world music artist, a novelist and an author focusing on ID politics.
Welcome to Gilad Atzmon's webpage. This site provides information about Gilad's musical and intellectual activity.
Walid Darab & Gilad Atzmon
We spoke about the deceitful nature of the Jewish Left (Chomsky, Mondoweiss, JVP etc'), The Guardian of Zion, The corrosive impact of George Soros, ID Politics and the damage it inflicts on society. Very interesting
Read More
Three years after the publication of The Wandering Who, I discussed with Bill Alford different aspects of Jewish power and controlled opposition. We elaborated on Identity politics and the tribal ideology that drive Zionism as well as the so-called 'anti.'
Read More"The Palestinians are devastated, but the Israelis are the big losers following the bombardment of Gaza".
We spoke about 'solidarity', controlled opposition, political paralysis and activists' impotence. I also spoke about the structures and the building of cognitive elite. I attempted to explain the difference between Palestinian subservient elite (Ramallah) and combatant one (Gaza).
By Gilad Atzmon
Jews and philosophy have had a pretty troubled relationship. The collision between ‘the tribal’ and ‘the universal’ or, more accurately, between Athens and Jerusalem, is inevitable. The few great Jewish thinkers who transcended the tribal, such as Spinoza or Otto Weininger, have been harassed and labelled by the rabbis as ‘self haters’ and enemies of the Jews.
Some contemporary Zionist merchants insist upon wrapping their Judeo centrism in crypto philosophical arguments. Bernard-Henri Levy, for instance, advocates his Zionist warmongering using a pseudo ‘moralist’ terminology.
Today I came across a uniquely banal rant by Asa Kasher, a Jewish ‘philosopher’ at Tel Aviv University. Kasher, who also authored the ‘IDF ethical code,’defended Israel’s military conduct in the recent Gaza campaign in an article published in the Jewish Review of Books.
Kasher wrote, “Hamas unscrupulously violates every norm in the book.” And I wonder, what book? I would like to find out, at a minimum, what ‘book’ grants the Jewish State the right to uproot an entire nation in the name of a Jewish homecoming? Is there a book that permits the Jews to turn a city into an open-air prison? Is there a book that legitimates reducing Gaza into a pile of rubble? I am afraid that the answer is affirmative. There is more than one such book. But these books aren’t exactly philosophical texts. These books are the prime Judaic texts. The Talmud and The Old Testament are suffocated by Goy hatred and stories of Jews and their God pouring their ‘wrath on the Goyim.’ Rabbinical Judaism has historically been very careful in the way it treated some of those vile and barbaric Judaic verses and teachings. But Israel and Zionism draw inspiration from those genocidal verses, and the outcome is evident in the shattered urban landscape of Gaza.
Unlike the very few Jews who actually contributed to humanity by means of self-reflection (such as Jesus, Spinoza and Marx), Kasher prefers pointing at Hamas. He denounces Palestinian militants for indiscriminately rocketing Israeli cities. I wonder if the same ‘Kosher Aristotle’ would go out of his way to denounce Jewish militants in Auschwitz if they had possessed the ballistic capability to rocket Berlin and had acted upon it? I doubt it.
Back in the 18th century, in a remarkable attempt to formulate an anthropocentric, ethical requirement that was justified by means of reason, Immanuel Kant presented the Categorical Imperative: “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Let’s examine Kasher’s thoughts in the light of Kant’s imperative. If the IDF operated ethically in Gaza, as Kasher foolishly suggests, then every military force should be expected to follow the ‘IDF universal law:’ flatten entire cities, uproot nations, murder innocent civilians and so on. Perhaps a Zionist Jew can follow such awkward reasoning.
Kasher further asks, “Does the presence of large numbers of non-combatants in the vicinity of a building that is directly involved in terrorist assaults on Israelis render that building immune to Israeli attack?” Kasher continues, “The answer is, and must be, no. Israel cannot forfeit its ability to protect its citizens against attacks simply because terrorists hide behind non-combatants. If it did so, it would be giving up any right to self-defense.”
Consciously or not, the banal Israeli so-called ‘philosopher’ evinces the complete opposite of philosophical, ethical or universal principled thinking. Instead, he provides a glimpse into Jewish tribal ethno-centrism in which ‘goodness’ is defined solely by Jewish interests.
In a total dismissal of international conventions and of ethical judgment, Kasher blurs the crucial distinction between ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ and between the innocent and the actor.
The verdict is obvious. That Israel repeatedly behaves unethically goes without saying, but reading Kasher reveals that the Jewish State also lacks the notion of an ethical horizon. Even its academic authority on the subject is totally incompetent.
This is disturbing but not surprising.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular - available on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk
By Gilad Atzmon
Is the fact that half of the Scots want to split from Britain and the news that hundreds of young Muslim Brits are fighting with Jihadi militant groups in Syria connected?
Of course they are. These two social phenomena are intrinsically linked, yet in the intellectual desert in which we live, no one dares to address the subject. The boundaries of our curiosity are limited by our deference to political correctness and Zionist sensitivities.
From a political perspective, Jihadi enthusiasm amongst young Western Muslims is an outcome of the emergence of tribalism in the West; but isn’t the call for Scottish independence driven by a similar tribal urge? From both a philosophical and dialectic perspective, Jihadi identification and the Scottish call for independence are the antithesis of the New Left and its corrosive Identity (ID) politics that have been spread in our midst for too long.
The following is a video of my entire Conférence with the great Alain Soral at théâtre de la Main d'Or, Paris (11 June 2014). It is hard to believe but this two and a half hours of deep philosophical discussion attracted more than 60,000 viewers in just two days. I guess that in spite of all the efforts made by Jewish progressives and cultural Marxists to murder Western intellectual spirit, curiosity has prevailed...
My English presentation starts at around 6:40
Two days ago I referred to a critique of ‘The Wandering Who’ written by Mark Gardner. Gardner is a rabid Zionist and Jewish supremacist who tends to conflate Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) with Jewish ethnicity. However, Gardner’s criticism of my book was, in the main, intelligent and fair, though certainly not free of error.
Yesterday, I found out that The Occidental Observer, a White Supremacist magazine, also published a lengthy review of ‘The Wandering Who’ written by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. Like Gardner, MacDonald also conflates Jewish ideology and culture with ethnicity. His most controversial claim is that a suite of traits that he attributes to Jews, including higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentrisms, have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to outsmart non-Jews in the competition for resources while, at the same time, undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America who, he insists, Jews seek to dispossess. Just like Gardner, MacDonald produced an interesting text, though Macdonald’s was somewhat more scholarly.
Although both are supremacist and ethnocentric thinkers, Gardner and MacDonald seem to be in a kind of dispute.
(A talk given at the 'Palestine, Israel, Germany- The Boundaries of Open Discussion Conference’, Freiburg 11th September 2011)
Dear ladies and gentlemen.
I will begin my talk with an unusual confession. Though I was born in Israel, in the first thirty years of my life I did not know much about the Nakba, the brutal and racially driven ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in 1948 by the newly born Israeli State. My peers and myself knew about a single massacre, namely, Deir Yassin but we were not at all familiar with the vast scale of atrocities committed by our grandparents. We believed that the Palestinians had voluntarily fled. We were told that they had run away and we did not find any reason to doubt that this had indeed been the case.
Let me tell you that in all my years in Israel, I have never heard the word Nakba spoken. This may sound pathetic, or even absurd to you -- but what about you? Shouldn’t you also ask yourself -- when was the first time you heard the word Nakba? Perhaps you can also try to recall when this word settled comfortably into your lexicon. Let me help you here -- I have carried out a little research amongst my European and American Palestinian solidarity friends, and most of them had only heard the word Nakba for the first time, just a few short years ago, whilst others admitted that they had only started to use the word themselves three or four years ago.
But isn’t that a slightly strange state of affairs? After all, the Nakba took place more than six decades ago. How is it that only recently it found its way into our symbolic order?
Daniel: If you ask, for instance, why were the Jews repeatedly hated in so many places along their history, as you do in some of your texts, you create room for anti-Semites who may say it is because they are intrinsically evil.
Gilad: To start with, as a thinking being full of curiosity, I do not take instructions from anti Semites or Zionists or Jewish anti Zionist campaigners. I instead follow my instincts and go along with my sincere ethically driven truth-seeking adventure. Also, I believe that the answer you attributed to anti Semites can be easily addressed. Jews cannot be ‘intrinsically evil’ because Jews do not form a racial or ethnic continuum. Any racial attribution to Jews is clearly wrong and silly.
Daniel: I actually do not agree with your approach. The appropriate answer to the above question is that in the Middle Ages Jews were barred from many professions except money trade and peddling, two professions which could easily arouse disdain and hate.
Gilad: Dear Daniel, with all due respect, such an answer is far from being sufficient. In Europe at least, Jews have been emancipated since the French Revolution. By the end of the 19th century most European Jews enjoyed equal rights. And yet, something went horribly wrong in the 1920s-30’s. Our duty then, is to understand, what was it? Why did it happen? Why do Jews encounter resentment all too often and in many different places?
Two weeks ago I published a review of Eric Walberg’s invaluable new book Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games. I was left with a few questions which Eric was kind enough to address.
Gilad Atzmon: Hello Eric; thanks for finding the time to talk. I would like to begin if I may, with a few short questions: firstly, what is self-hatred?
Eric Walberg: Buddhism is based on the annihilation of the self. Islam – on the total submission of self. It’s at the heart of Christian beliefs too. (I don’t know about Judaism.) Self-hatred has respectable roots.
GA: I totally agree with you. However, I wonder, are you a self-hater? I ask because in your writing, you seem to be deeply familiar with that kind of intellectual adventure.
EW: In some way, I like Woody Allen’s riposte “I may be self-hating but not because I’m a Jew.” The self is constantly prompting us to do terrible things, so a bit of self-criticism is not such a bad trait.
GA: Considering the increasing power of Jewish lobbies, what do you think should be the role of the Jewish self-hater?
It might be argued that the passing week was not very easy on the Palestinian solidarity movement: firstly, an international peaceful flotilla aiming to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza did not manage to leave Greek ports. The Greek government had surrendered submissively to Israeli pressure and American Jewish organisations, and blocked the naval enterprise.
Secondly, an international attempt to fly hundreds of activists from all over the world to the West Bank also partially failed, as the Israeli Government had managed to mount just enough pressure to make sure that the project fell apart before it became airborne.[1]
Though it may seem as if the Palestinian solidarity movement suffered a blow, it is actually Israel that was harshly beaten here, for Israel has managed to expose its level of hysteria: it seems that eight old yachts and a few hundred Easyjet passengers have managed to shake the entire Israeli society. Now try to imagine the potential impact of hundred of thousands of Palestinian refugees marching to their homes in Jaffa , Acre Lod , Ramle, Haifa, Beer Shiva and Al Quds.
I guess that the picture is clearer than ever-- Israel doesn’t stand a chance. Its fate is doomed. It is just a question of time. It is not a matter of ‘if’ but a question of ‘when’.
What makes one a philosopher? Probably, the capacity to aim at the essence of things, while celebrating the love of wisdom (philo-sophos). Though Bernard-Henri Lévy presents himself as a French philosopher, he seems to lack that elementary capacity. Unlike a true philosopher, Levy engages in an endless spin, typical to a Hasbara agent.
A few days ago the Huffington Post gave a platform to the alleged ‘philosopher’ Levy.
Levy doesn’t approve of the BDS (Boycott, Disinventment, Sanctions) campaign. He claims it is “anti democratic”. I was expecting Levy to eloquently advocate ‘freedom of speech’ and human rights, but the Zionist ‘intellectual’ failed miserably. Levy followed the well-trodden Judeo centric Zionist template and spread half-baked ideas that hardly form an argument. Pathetically, in most cases, Levy’s ranting proves counter effective to his cause.
Along the years we have heard about ‘Jews against Zionism’, ‘Jews against Racism’ and ‘Jews against anti Semitism’. In the last few days we have learned about a new Jewish collective. They are called ‘Jews Against the King.’
Apparently some Jews in Hollywood are not happy with the great cinematic success of The King’s Speech, the latest British film.
The King’s Speech follows the story of King George VI- a man who never wished to be King, and had trouble with his confidence and public speech as he had an uncontrollable stammer. From a Jewish perspective King George VI was nothing but an anti Semite.
Hollywood blogger Scott Feinberg cites an anonymous email, supposedly from an Academy member, which claims the picture ignores George VI’s role in preventing Jewish refugees from fleeing Nazi Germany to Palestine.
"I'm an Academy member and there are a LOT of us who won't vote for The King's Speech for this reason," the email reads.
Feinberg speculates that the email may be part of “an orchestrated smear campaign”. Critics claim that George VI indirectly conspired with Hitler to prevent Jews from reaching Palestine, which at the time was under British mandate.
I guess that sooner or later Hollywood may have to liberate itself of its Holocaust driven agents.
Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.
During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.
It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.
But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.
I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.
Since Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish state’ we are entitled to consider what the word ‘Jewish’ stands for.
I tend to differentiate between three distinct (yet occasionally confusing) categories.
1. Jews - the people
2. Judaism - the religion
3. Jewishness - the ideology
During my study of Zionism, Jewish politics, 'identity politics' and culture, I have managed to avoid embroiling myself in the complexity involved with the first category -- I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity. I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion). In fact, I am the first to admit that the only Jewish collective to support the Palestinians, are groups that exist within the Torah Jews. That such groups support Palestinian self-determination and autonomy is proof enough that aspects of religious Judaism can be interpreted as emphasising ethical precepts.
However -- I am very critical of what I view as 'Jewish ideology, and I am also critical of what I consider to be 'Jewish identity politics.'
'Jewish ideology' is basically an amalgam of racially orientated exclusive arguments. It is fuelled by assumptions about 'ethno'-centric supremacy, and ideas such as ‘choseness’. Being a tribal setting then, Jewish ideology defies equality. It also opposes universalism. The followers of that ideology tend to believe that they are somewhat different and even better (chosen) than non Jews. And much Jewish political activity is a formulation, and expression of a tribal exclusive club that demands a ‘Jews only’ entry card.
Recognizing Israel as uniquely Jewish is one of the key demands made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest talks with the Palestinians. However, Foreign Minister Lieberman took it one step further. He demands all Israelis swear an oath of loyalty to the Jewish state. Liebermann’s campaign slogan is "no loyalty, no citizenship."
"We can't continue to ignore issues like that of Hanin Zuabi, who identifies completely with the other side," Said Lieberman on Sunday. He was referring to an Israeli Arab member of Knesset who was stripped of her parliamentary privileges after sailing aboard the heroic Mavi Marmara, and being witness to the Israeli massacre in high seas.
So here we are : Israel is basically a Western liberal ‘multi cultural’ society where all different ethnicities and minorities are demanded to swear loyalty to the ultimate form of chauvinist Jewish tribal practice.
On the eve of the Gaza Flotilla Mission. A talk given in Kyttaro Athens 19.5.10
The London Palestinian Film Festival opened this year with Elia Suleiman’s latest feature “The Time that Remains” (105min), a monumental reflective and poetic take on Palestine since 1948.
To a certain extent Suleiman’s latest film reminded me of Ramzy Baroud’s book My Father Was a Freedom Fighter. Both works chart a personal and devastating expedition into hopelessness. Both accounts are saturated with repeated failures and betrayals, both Baroud and Suleiman are courageous enough to criticise their collective narrative and yet, both pepper their story with some staggering wit, hope and humour. They make you smile just when you are about to sob.
To watch trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmUPHXAC3Lk
“Spirit does not toss itself about in the external play of chance occurrences; on the contrary, it is that which determines history absolutely, and it stands firm against the chance occurrences which it dominates and exploits for its own purpose”. (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770 – 1831)
PM Netanyahu was quoted by the Israeli Ynet last week saying that the “whole of Israel would be surrounded by a fence eventually”. According to another report he said “there will be no choice but to fence Israel in on all directions”. What Netanyahu means by ‘fence’ and ‘all directions’ may be left open for the time being. However, PM Netanyahu has managed to bring to light an Hegelian interpretation of the notion of ‘Jewish spirit’ as a relentless inclination towards segregation and isolation. It is the tendency to keep oneself apart that determines and shapes Jewish collectivism. Whether it is the Zionists and their walls, the Orthodox and their Kosher universe or even Jewish anti Zionists and their racially segregated miniature activist cells, somehow every form of Jewish political engagement is there to set the Jews apart.
It is pretty embarrassing to discover that not a single Western film critic is courageous enough to tell us what the latest Coen Brother’s film is all about. Those who reviewed A Serious Man inform us that this film is the Coen Brother’s most autobiographical to date, drawing on their upbringing. They assert that A Serious Man is the film many Jewish fans of the Coen brothers have always wanted them to make. One film critic also maintains that the film is deftly balancing bright comedy and bitter darkness. Some critics are genuine enough to confess that it is slightly anti Semitic but for some reason, they all fail to tell us what the film is about. What is the ideology, philosophy and symbolism behind it? They are shy of analysing the film’s metaphysics, they refrain from touching its meaning and cowardly avoid pointing to its message.
To watch the Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FYtprwg1As&feature=fvst
A Serious Man is a cinematic allegory of Jewish cultural detachment from nature. It is a masterpiece that elaborates on the abnormalities of the Jewish tribal existence.